SECTION METADATA

Section ID: CEP-INT-14-GAMES-IDENTITIES

Canonical Section Title: Games — Personalities / Identities

Primary Concepts: iconic figures; public figures; folk classification; strategy combinations; personalities; identities.

Claim Types: interpretive; model-internal; polemic/rhetorical.

Semantic Function: Connect the four strategy combinations to identity/personality types and public figures.

Related Sections: CEP-INT-13-INTUITIVE-SUMMARY; CEP-INT-12-SOLUTION; CEP-INT-15-INCENTIVES.

Context Snapshot

* This passage classifies the four strategy combinations as "games," understood as personalities or identities.

* It identifies Combination 4, Materialism + Pessimism, as the Nash equilibrium, marked by narrative saturation and strict enforcement of Darwinism in the animate and the inanimate.

* The background section explains the author's method: disrupting the "folk classification" of public figures by distinguishing essential from negligible traits at the ontological and epistemological levels.

* The argument links the possibility of such reclassification to modern scientific findings from Hugo de Vries to Dan Graur, especially around what Darwin saw in the Galápagos Islands.

* The practical implication is framed as a critical stance toward "solid" versions of figures such as Oskar Dirlewanger, Pol Pot, and Yahya Sinwar in public space.

* Risk hotspots: comparisons between public figures, "Surprise" polemics from prior sections, "Dare to Know," "gender studies," "fear of God," "biomass" continuation, and the contrast between comfortable and disruptive inquiry.

Games (personalities/identities):

1. Idealism + Optimism - iconic figures: Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin.

2. Idealism + Pessimism - iconic figures: Tomás de Torquemada, Hassan al-Banna, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Israel Aumann.

3. Materialism + Optimism - iconic figures: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Pol Pot.

4. Materialism + Pessimism - Nash equilibrium. Main characteristic: the strongest tendency to combine in rhetoric, in relation to the discussion of value-related, economic, and political questions, as many concepts as possible with the potential for narrative interpretation: "Zionism," "territories," "peace," "democracy," "acceptance of the generic Other." Go figure what that means. The procedure "we shall do and we shall hear" and "see and sanctify" is applied to Darwinism in the animate and the inanimate in a severe manner, in every department, on every campus, in every university. [TN: "We shall do and we shall hear" and "see and sanctify" are Hebrew religious-formulaic expressions used here as metaphors for unquestioning acceptance.] With respect to Darwinism in the animate and the inanimate, zero narrative tolerance exists at the level of the interface between public consciousness and the formal authoritative channels of explanation. My narrative on the subject of "collective phenotypic traits," which says of them that the change in them does not exceed the boundaries of "species traits," is received with sour faces in every department, on every campus, in every university. I look for evolution "stammerers" and do not find them. Everyone sings it smoothly. The result: catastrophe. Yours truly continues to take up a battle position, in both senses, continuously. Where are the incentives directed toward awakening solidarity with Darwinism?! There is an experience of "fear of God." The procedure is not applied with the same degree of severity under the combination Materialism + Optimism. See the case of Yuri Petrovich Altukhov. Characteristic form of thought: "Peace Now" = "Palestinian Meir Yaari and Yaakov Hazan now," in the era after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War = severe relativism / anti-intellectualism = an urgent need for a cultural symbol, local to global, such as Yuval Noah Harari. Iconic figures: Shulamit Aloni, Naomi Chazan, Yuli Tamir, Oskar Dirlewanger.

Games - Background

The pair "Naomi Chazan-Oskar Dirlewanger" is like the pair "Rosa Luxemburg-Pol Pot" or the pair "Israel Aumann-Yahya Sinwar." There is no essential difference in positions at the level of ontological discussion and at the level of epistemological discussion. There is a clear difference in profit-maximizing practice with a socioeconomic character, at the level of thought about society / generalizing thought - which derives the practice.

The essence of the discussion of the Central Equilibrium Problem is the disruption of the "folk classification" into "homogeneous categories" of "public figures" - Naomi Chazan, Rosa Luxemburg, and Israel Aumann versus Oskar Dirlewanger, Pol Pot, and Yahya Sinwar. That is, it is the swapping of places between characteristics of "public figures" labeled "essential" and characteristics of "public figures" labeled "negligible." The capacity for such a disruption of classification - the destruction of the status quo - becomes possible in light of the findings of modern science, from Hugo de Vries to Dan Graur, which bear a strong relation to the question of what exactly Darwin saw in the Galápagos Islands.

The very capacity to discuss the Central Equilibrium Problem is conditional from the outset on mastery of the subject of "the phenomenon of development/evolution": whether it occurs or does not occur in systems that are not "the individual that possesses the program directing its development." If the subject is foreign to you, the discussion of the Central Equilibrium Problem may turn out to be incoherent.

In summary: the central claim of the author of "the Central Equilibrium Problem" is that manifestations in spacetime of the combinations Materialism + Pessimism, Materialism + Optimism, and Idealism + Pessimism, in the form of "unsympathetic" "public figures" such as "Oskar Dirlewanger," "Pol Pot," and "Yahya Sinwar," are born from manifestations in spacetime of the same combinations, but in the form of "sympathetic" "public figures" such as "Naomi Chazan," "Rosa Luxemburg," and "Israel Aumann." Never the reverse!

The practical implication of understanding "the Central Equilibrium Problem" is criticality in the spirit of the question of the presence - in public space and nowhere else - of solid Oskar Dirlewangers, solid Pol Pots, and solid Yahya Sinwars. The discussion of the Central Equilibrium Problem is fully aligned with the slogan known as the slogan of the Enlightenment era: "Dare to know." One does not touch what is comfortable to discuss / induces calm / does not bother anyone. The protocol "Dare to know" is activated in especially challenging times. It can be activated within a formal framework, including in a nation-religion state, but not necessarily. At other times, including reasonably challenging times, another protocol is activated: "gender studies." The two protocols are antithetical to one another.

SECTION METADATA

Section ID: CEP-INT-15-INCENTIVES

Canonical Section Title: Incentives — Governmental Stability

Primary Concepts: incentives; governmental stability; administrative dimension; civic dimension; Pareto; circulation of elites; force of ideas.

Claim Types: definition; model-internal; interpretive; normative.

Semantic Function: Define governmental stability as the key incentive that drives the administrative dimension.

Related Sections: CEP-INT-16-COOPERATION; CEP-INT-18-PARETO; CEP-INT-19-FUNDAMENTAL-RULE.

Context Snapshot

* This passage defines the incentive layer of the Central Equilibrium Problem through the key concept "governmental stability."

* It introduces six axioms, beginning with a Pareto-style elite-circulation frame and distinguishing between an administrative dimension and a civic dimension.

* The passage presents the administrative dimension as controlling the positioning, intensity, and spread of ideas, while the civic dimension inherits ideas and is exposed to uncertainty.

* Western science and philosophy are positioned as the exclusive source for distinguishing truth from falsehood, and therefore as the basis for cooperation / non-cooperation.

* Axiom 6 develops the "unconscious metaphor" of Yeshayahu Leibowitz as a way to explain the modern dominance of development/evolution as a cosmic metaphor.

* The section ends by defining governmental stability as a super-incentive under market economy / uncertainty, determined by cooperation or non-cooperation with the civic dimension at the ontological and epistemological levels.

SECONDARY-LEVEL FORMAL NOTE

The core CEP game is played by Ont and Epi as abstract sides of cognition. The administrative/civic distinction belongs to a secondary level of interpretation.

ADM = the administrative dimension; CIV = the civic dimension. At this secondary level, ADM and CIV are not replacements for Ont and Epi. They are institutional and social carriers through which the core strategies become expressed in public life.

Incentives

(Key concept for understanding the incentives: "governmental stability")

Axiom 1 (based on Vilfredo Pareto's theory of the "circulation of elites"):

Rule: Every politically organized society / governmental system is composed of two elements:

A. "The administrative dimension" - high capacity to purchase an apartment for investment:

Built from "the six arenas of control in public life" - capital, elected officials, media, law, security mechanisms, academia. This dimension is not "the productive sector" but "the sector that directs productivity." Main characteristic: the average age of those with first-order influence: the last third or quarter of life / the age of prostate problems, mainly men. The strongest arena: academia. Why? Because we are not worms. Main vulnerability, in light of Western science and philosophy: Darwinism in the animate and the inanimate - ontology. Main vulnerability of "the administrative dimension" in previous centuries, up to the 20th century: desert-god worship - epistemology.

B. "The civic dimension" - low capacity to purchase an apartment for investment:

The rank-and-file element that pays taxes, repays debts, and is bereaved of sons. This dimension is "the productive sector." Main characteristic: the remaining age strata. Under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty, it cannot reach a state of "economic-security experience" or "continuous satisfaction" of any kind. Continuous confusion, alertness, and tension in anticipation of the unknown = a market economy that is controlled / capable of deriving a forecast of itself.

Axiom 2:

"The administrative dimension" does not change essentially, in terms of the relation between it and "the civic dimension," along the time continuum - from the state of "the Jesuit order" to the state of "the secular-socialist, human-materialist and Darwinist element." "Samson's hair" grows from different places.

Axiom 3:

"The administrative dimension" "generates a situation"; "the civic dimension" "finds itself in a situation." Why? "The administrative dimension" controls the positioning, intensity, and spread of "ideas," including the positioning, intensity, and spread of "the idea" that says of "ideas" that they are insignificant compared with fluctuations of particles. "The civic dimension" inherits only "ideas." In short: a young man inside a fighter jet who, by pressing a button, drops a thousand people is not "generating a situation." The one who controls the positioning, intensity, and spread of "ideas" - meta-narrative ideas: "Whoever is for the Lord, come to me," Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster - "generates a situation."

Axiom 4:

The very existence of every politically organized society / governmental system, under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty, is not an "objective value" from the standpoint of the rules of the game of the market economy precisely. Such societies / systems come and go all the time. The "eternal existence" of each one of them as a "value" is not compelled by anything, unlike, for example, ecological systems.

Axiom 5:

Western science and philosophy are the exclusive source for distinguishing between truth and falsehood; from them, in the first place, cooperation / non-cooperation is learned. For example: only Western science and philosophy have the power to teach:

A. Whether the findings of the "Weismann barrier" and the findings of "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium," which arise from legitimate scientific research and compel the mind 1. to posit an unknown factor that introduces new information into the gene pool of the world of species - hereditary mutations or non-hereditary mutations - assuming that we must posit the development/evolution of the world of species as occurring analogously to embryonic development; 2. to interpret the phenomenon of "Darwinian adaptive variation" through the tension between the potential for phenotypic expression, embedded at the genetic level of the species as a whole, and actual phenotypic expression, beginning at the level of the subspecific population, are or are not reinforced by two later sources: 1. molecular biology: the clarification of regulatory mechanisms over gene replication; 2. paleontology: Gould and Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium, which teaches much stability versus little development/evolution where it ought to be otherwise.

B. Whether the appearance of the universe's expansion, mediated to us through the formal authoritative channels of explanation by recruiting concepts from the world of plastics and rubber processing, is or is not "first-order evidence" in relation to another candidate for being "first-order evidence." This candidate is the capacity of "matter" at stage 1 to appear on its own initiative, through one of the two operating directions of the mass-energy equivalence formula, and at stage 2 to organize itself, still on its own initiative, specifically into celestial bodies, exactly in the manner of the development of "the individual that possesses the program directing its development."

Axiom 6 (based on the entry "development" in the Hebrew Encyclopedia):

The circumstance-dependent / time-and-place-dependent dominance of the perception of physical reality as a whole through the perception of the phenomenon of entropy as a particular-case phenomenon of the phenomenon of development/evolution - the new cognition - at the expense of the perception of physical reality as a whole through the perception of the phenomenon of development/evolution as a particular-case phenomenon of the phenomenon of entropy - the traditional cognition - is learned from Yeshayahu Leibowitz's concept of "the unconscious metaphor." The unconscious metaphor = the sublimation of ontogenesis in the form of projecting from ontogenesis onto all levels of physical reality beyond the level of "the individual that possesses the program directing its development": from the level of the atom, through the level of biological species, and up to the level of the universe in its entirety.

The concept "the unconscious metaphor," which constitutes, among other things, the basis for formulating the entry "development" in the Hebrew Encyclopedia, rests on three principles:

1. Treating "systems of changes" from nature that are not "the individual that possesses the program directing its development" as "systems of changes" that are also a process of development/evolution is nothing other than the recruitment of the phenomenon of "the development of the individual that possesses the program directing its development," by means of metaphor, in order to describe various processes in science and culture, imagined and non-imagined alike.

2. Such treatment of "systems of changes" from nature that are not "the individual that possesses the program directing its development" should be attributed to certain publics that began to appear, in the form of "politically organized societies," only in the 20th century: national-capitalism, national-socialism, communism.

3. Such treatment of "systems of changes" from nature that are not "the individual that possesses the program directing its development" may also be presumed to bring about both the insertion of concepts from the world of plastics and rubber processing into the discipline of astronomy, in order to describe the universe and/or the processes taking place in it, imagined and non-imagined alike, and the transformation of science into an opposition to popular science. That is, under all conditions, both the recruitment of the phenomenon of "the development of the individual that possesses the program directing its development," by means of metaphor, in order to describe various processes in science and culture, imagined and non-imagined alike, and the insertion of concepts from the world of plastics and rubber processing into the discipline of astronomy, in order to describe the universe and/or the processes taking place in it, imagined and non-imagined alike, will always occur first because of collective-cognitive factors, and not first because of scientific-empirical findings.

The meaning of Axiom 6 is that each of the two paradigms, with respect to the meaning of the concept "development/evolution" - the perception of physical reality as a whole through the perception of the phenomenon of entropy as a particular-case phenomenon of the phenomenon of development/evolution, versus the perception of physical reality as a whole through the perception of the phenomenon of development/evolution as a particular-case phenomenon of the phenomenon of entropy - has a cognitive foundation which, although subject to manipulation, is not dependent for its very existence on "will." The foundation as such is not acquired.

"Governmental stability" as a super-incentive under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty, rule:

"Governmental stability" - imagined value = 1 - versus "absence of governmental stability" - imagined value = 0 - under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty, and subject to the interest profile of the age stratum characteristic of "the administrative dimension" - "governmental stability" at any cost for approximately the next four decades - is directly affected by the choice between cooperation and non-cooperation in relation to "the civic dimension," at the level of ontological discussion and at the level of epistemological discussion.

SECTION METADATA

Section ID: CEP-INT-16-COOPERATION

Canonical Section Title: Meanings of Cooperation

Primary Concepts: cooperation; epistemological discussion; ontological discussion; civic dimension; governmental stability; monotheism; Darwinism.

Claim Types: model-internal; interpretive; polemic/rhetorical.

Semantic Function: Define what cooperation means for each player and why it threatens governmental stability.

Related Sections: CEP-INT-15-INCENTIVES; CEP-INT-17-EL-NEVAKESH; CEP-INT-18-PARETO.

Context Snapshot

* This passage defines the meanings of cooperation for the two players introduced in the Central Equilibrium Problem.

* Player 1 concerns cooperation at the epistemological-discussion level, especially as it relates to governmental stability under market economy / uncertainty.

* Player 2 concerns cooperation at the ontological-discussion level, especially with respect to Darwinism in the animate and the inanimate, cosmology, mutation, and the interpretation of adaptive variation.

* The repeated governing contrast is between what younger members of the civic dimension may experience as curiosity and identification, and what older members of the administrative dimension experience as tension and anxiety.

* Risk hotspots: tefillin, prophecy as political dealing, "desert-god worship," beheading, soft/hard national-socialism, Matzpen, Darwinist narratives about early hominins, and the quoted lyrics from "El Nevakesh."

COOPERATION / NON-COOPERATION IN FORMAL TERMS

Cooperation in CEP means movement toward a state in which a side of cognition does not block the civic dimension’s access to the relevant ontological or epistemological discussion.

Non-cooperation means preserving the strategy combination that protects governmental stability for the administrative dimension, even when the result is Pareto-inefficient for the collective. In the formal notation, the core non-cooperative lock-in is S4 = D×B.

Meanings of Cooperation

Player 1

The meaning of cooperation at the level of epistemological discussion, in connection with the question of "governmental stability," under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty: opening a path toward domains in which the following do not obtain, or are violated: 1. a collective subconscious containing criticality toward monotheism; 2. partial realization of Piaget's fourth stage in "the civic dimension" with respect to monotheism; 3. Kuhn dominant, Popper recessive, with respect to monotheism; 4. differentiation of the educated stratum into Snow's two cultures = a threat to "governmental stability" under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty. The value 0 is obtained.

The meaning of cooperation at the level of epistemological discussion, essence: 1. The commandment of laying tefillin is an entirely human category / not a category that combines human and superhuman involvement. 2. "The prophetic institution" / "desert-god worship" are an expression of "political dealing" in the style of the ancient world / a consequence of the failed attempt of a handful of old men to create social order, impose authority, and enforce policy: do what I said, not because I want it, but because God commanded it. 3. Julian Huxley, the first formal neo-Darwinist = an agent of narrative; Carl Sagan = an agent of narrative; Richard Dawkins = an agent of narrative; Yuval Noah Harari = an agent of narrative. 4. The religious people of the 20th century in general, and of the post-World War II era in particular, are a "human reaction" to pseudoscience and pseudo-Enlightenment: national-monotheism, fascism, communism, liberalism.

The "reaction" has four modes of expression: 1. Yeshayahu Leibowitz; 2. Israel Aumann; 3. Uri Zohar; 4. beheadings. The Edah HaChareidis belongs to the expression "Yeshayahu Leibowitz"; Zvi Yehezkeli belongs to the expression "Uri Zohar"; and which expression do you belong to? If, as an Israeli citizen participating in democratic elections - placing trust in the system - you do not assign yourself to one of the four modes of "the reaction," on the one hand, and you are not "Matzpen," on the other, then you are a "soft" national-socialist like Shulamit Aloni, Naomi Chazan, and Yuli Tamir, and not a "hard" national-socialist like Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler, and Oskar Dirlewanger. [TN: "Matzpen" refers here to the Israeli radical-left anti-Zionist movement, used as a political identity marker.]

If the combination "Idealism + Pessimism" can be expressed in spacetime in the form of public figures such as Israel Aumann, on the one hand, and Tomás de Torquemada, on the other, then the combination "Materialism + Pessimism" can certainly also be expressed in spacetime in a "soft" state, on the one hand, and in a "hard" state, on the other. On the contrary, one may even argue - in Hegelian terms - that the character of the public figures Shulamit Aloni, Naomi Chazan, and Yuli Tamir is actually an expression of the "public relations" that national-socialism performs for itself, in light of the events of the first half of the 20th century in general.

The strategy of maintaining the idea that everything is fine with Darwin's theory in light of the test of scientific proof will not turn out to advance a Pareto-efficient state, in the terms of the Central Equilibrium Problem, no matter in which century. The meaning of cooperation at the level of epistemological discussion = a young person experiences curiosity and identification; an old person experiences tension and anxiety. Why? Under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty, the old person seeks contact in the world of ideas, knowing that if he controls the world of ideas, he will control his own fate. The young person seeks contact in the world of cemeteries, knowing that if he controls the world of combat skills, he will increase his own chance of not dying in combat.

Player 2

The meaning of cooperation at the level of ontological discussion, in connection with the question of "governmental stability," under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty: opening a path toward domains in which the following do not obtain, or are violated: 1. a collective subconscious containing criticality toward Darwinism - in the animate and the inanimate; 2. partial realization of Piaget's fourth stage in "the civic dimension" with respect to Darwinism - in the animate and the inanimate; 3. Kuhn dominant, Popper recessive, with respect to Darwinism - in the animate and the inanimate; 4. differentiation of the educated stratum into Snow's two cultures = a threat to "governmental stability" under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty. The value 0 is obtained.

The meaning of cooperation at the level of ontological discussion, essence: 1. The theory of the expansion of the universe from a certain zero point - the elastic-universe theory / the Big Bang - is not a scientific theory so long as there is no clarity regarding the capacity of "matter" at stage 1 to appear on its own initiative, through one of the two operating directions of the mass-energy equivalence formula, and at stage 2 to organize itself, still on its own initiative, specifically into celestial bodies, exactly in the manner of the development of "the individual that possesses the program directing its development."

2. The later findings, such as the clarification of regulatory mechanisms over gene replication and Gould and Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium, reinforce the conclusion that the potential for the adaptation of subspecific populations to environmental conditions is embedded in the structure of the species genome.

3. The conclusion that the potential for the adaptation of subspecific populations to environmental conditions is embedded in the structure of the species genome is ancient, and arises, as before, from the findings of: 1. August Weismann: we are not free to avoid positing an unknown factor that introduces new information into the gene pool of the world of species - hereditary mutations or non-hereditary mutations - assuming that we must posit the appearance of the development/evolution of the world of species, within the boundaries of the dimensions of space and time known to us, as occurring analogously to the appearance of the development of the individual that possesses the program directing its development. 2. Godfrey Harold Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg: despite the actual occurrence of change in genotype frequencies at a particular geographic site, that is, at the level of the subspecific population, this change does not alter the existing state, statistically speaking, of stable equilibrium between genotype frequencies and allele frequencies at the level of the species.

Conclusion: the findings of August Weismann, Godfrey Harold Hardy, and Wilhelm Weinberg together have the power to shed light on the phenomenon of "Darwinian adaptive variation" as the purpose of the tension between the potential for phenotypic expression, embedded at the genetic level of the species as a whole, and actual phenotypic expression, beginning at the level of the subspecific population.

4. The publication of the book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" at the time of World War II - October 1942 - is an ad hoc solution, in the form of institutionalizing the principle of "ordered randomness," to the problem of the cancellation of "the approach of gradual variation dependent on changes occurring in environmental conditions" - the proposal of the biometricians - by "the approach of the entry of new information into the gene pool of the world of species through hereditary mutations" - the proposal of the Mendelians.

5. The stories about Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster - what challenges they faced, what tools they made, under what circumstances they advanced along the spectrum of intellectual disability - are "consolation stories" of the same genre as stories about "the three patriarchs." They are evidence of the conditions under which even the Darwinist may connect with the words of the song "El Nevakesh" - lyrics: Tami Levi; music: Moshe Nagar; performance: Zohar Argov. A taste: "There are hidden things we will not understand or know; we will also do things that seem to have no reason; one need not investigate and ask about everything; sometimes it is also permitted not to know everything."

The meaning of cooperation at the level of epistemological discussion = a young person experiences curiosity and identification; an old person experiences tension and anxiety. Why? Under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty, the old person seeks contact in the world of ideas, knowing that if he controls the world of ideas, he will control his own fate. The young person seeks contact in the world of cemeteries, knowing that if he controls the world of combat skills, he will increase his own chance of not dying in combat.

SECTION METADATA

Section ID: CEP-INT-17-EL-NEVAKESH

Canonical Section Title: The Song “El Nevakesh”

Primary Concepts: El Nevakesh; Rosetta Stone; pessimistic epistemology; C&O; political pragmatism; Israeli answers.

Claim Types: interpretive; cultural; rhetorical.

Semantic Function: Identify the song as a cultural key to pessimistic epistemology and the model’s account of decision-making.

Related Sections: CEP-INT-03-EPI-S1; CEP-INT-07-Q1-EPISTEMOLOGY; CEP-INT-16-COOPERATION.

Context Snapshot

* This passage treats the song "El Nevakesh" as a Rosetta Stone for understanding pessimistic epistemology and, through it, Western philosophy as a whole.

* The argument defines pessimistic epistemology as the blocking of C&O - cynicism and opportunism - under market economy / uncertainty, through forces that mark certain things as beyond inquiry.

* The passage qualifies the song's meaning by tying it to its historical and cultural moment: it may be read either as an anti-critical proposal or as a plea to the ruling order to stop extracting without offering an equivalent alternative.

* The passage ends with a compressed list of "Israeli" answers to major questions about decision-making, linking figures such as Raphael Falk, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Dan Graur, Yuval Steinitz, Avishai Ehrlich, Yakir Aharonov / Jacob Bekenstein, Yair Golan, and Israel Aumann to specific theses.

* Risk hotspots: "national-socialist," "Yair Golan," "blood-sucking," "the kingdom of the day," "Big Bang is not a scientific theory," and "the cat from The Matrix."

The Song "El Nevakesh"

The song "El Nevakesh" is like a "Rosetta Stone" - a single song that is a key to understanding the essence of pessimistic epistemology as a whole, and therefore paves the way to understanding the essence of Western philosophy as a whole.

The meaning of pessimistic epistemology, in brief: the cancellation of the possibility of C&O - cynicism and opportunism - as the required ad hoc solution to the objective need for efficient and continuous social order and public administration under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty. This cancellation is carried out on behalf of factors that generate what is wondrous beyond you and concealed from you, into which you are channeled in every generation not to demand and not to investigate: political pragmatism at the expense of transparency at any cost, under conditions of a market economy / uncertainty.

And yet, the song "El Nevakesh" should nevertheless be treated, as a clear positive proposal to turn one's back on criticality, with qualification, because of the time and place in which it was written and performed. The song can also be interpreted as a plea before the kingdom of the day - national-monotheism, fascism, communism, liberalism - to stop sucking blood / not to take what exists without offering an alternative of at least equal value in return.

The song "El Nevakesh" joins a list of answers, to all the great questions concerning the discussion of decision-making processes, that Israeliness alone provides. There is no need to search elsewhere:

* The connection between Zionism and Darwinism - Raphael Falk.

* Heredity, in all its components, does not explain the development/evolution of the world of species from one common ancestor - Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

* Hereditary mutation cannot constitute an evolutionarily effective information-introducing factor into the world of species - Dan Graur.

* Positing the existence of God is the fruit of reason - Yuval Steinitz.

* The Jewish people created by Zionism in the second half of the 20th century - a banal offspring of the Cold War - Avishai Ehrlich.

* The "Big Bang" event is not a "scientific theory" - because one must not promote to the first-order level expansion, or any other morphological property, of something whose size one does not know at all, at the expense of the question of the capacity of matter at stage 1 to appear on its own initiative, through one of the two operating directions of the mass-energy equivalence formula, and at stage 2 to organize itself, still on its own initiative, specifically into celestial bodies, exactly in the manner of the development of "the individual that possesses the program directing its development." In other words, the fact that there is a fertilized egg does not require that there also be a singular point - Yakir Aharonov / Jacob Bekenstein.

* Yair Golan is a national-socialist, not a politician - Yair Golan himself.

* The cat from the film "The Matrix" - Israel Aumann.